I wasn't finished with you Frozen.
If it's any consolation to you, I can assure you I won't be using these arguments again, and if you actually READ this post, you'll find out why.
@Xiivi I'll include a summary at the end of this post, but there are many points I would like to address in further detail.
When you woke up this morning, what pant leg did you put on first? If you are right-handed, it's almost a certainty that it was your right leg. Why? Because people develop habits and preferences based on nature and nurture. Habits such as that which you demonstrated by your play a scant 2~3 weeks ago.
It's obvious that people here are just skimming through posts due to the large amount of material. You'll see why I say that in this post.
Let's think about Frozen's past few posts, starting with #267. (Not a link)
FrozenFallacy said:
The fact that I'm going to have to spend hours responding to this case that has more holes than an archery target greatly upsets me. Unfortunately, it's going to be necessary to show you that metagaming to the extremes that you are Cello, is probably the worst thing you can do when you play with experienced players. I know how to maintain a play style across games and regardless of alignment. These tells that you're picking up on are ridden with hindsight bias and fallacy of equivocation. It's a very sad that it's going to take something of this caliber to show that you have a terrible approach to mafia, but it's necessary.
This reeks of
appeal to authority. You are the experienced player (actually, the most experienced of the ones you left alive), so we are to blindly assume you can maintain a certain play style?
And just how are we to judge that for certain? We can't look at what you've done in the past as a gauge. Oh wait, that was according to you.
I would think that since the rest of your post deals primarily with logical fallacy, that you wouldn't begin with one. I guess experience isn't everything.
FrozenFrog said:
I'm glad you recognize your first example as joke. Because it is. As for you second, that doesn't constitute buddying either, seeing has how you defend them for an action that was taken not of their own volition. You literally tried to establish them as pro-town based on the timing of the mod's replacement of them. That type of reasoning is complete BS and poor mafia methodology. But more inportantly, the fact that you didn't base your defense of them on an interpretation of their actions, but rather, an appeal to (fallacy ridden) "knowledge" of what a mod would or would not do, is what definitively proves that you were not buddy them, but rather, trying to establish as known fact something that had no reason to be accepted as such.
Regardless though, I'm actaully defending you in part by proving you wrong here. It is quite scummish to go out of one's way to buddy obvious townies. Mafiats have little to loose and much to gain by supporting an easy to push clearing of those they know are town (or distinctly not of their anti-town faction) by virtue of them BEING of that faction.
This is the first bit that shows Frozen isn't really reading anything about what I'm doing here. Funny that he didn't take the time to realize the points he made here, before. Ronike previously talked (extensively) about scum getting defensive under pressure. But rather than attack my arguments in this fashion, Frozen opted to attack me.
Now, why would Frozen go out of his way to point out that this is a defense of me?
He wants to appear softer as his outburst wanes, so he doesn't alienate the town.
FrozenFallacy said:
Classic new player mistake. Attributing virtue to shoddy performance simply by attributing their play to provoking responses. Just because you got a response from someone does NOT make your play pro-town. Yes, stimulating discussion is good. But just because you were able to provoke a response from someone by directly attacking them doesnt NOT make your play pro-town, especially considering everything you've brought to the table against me is based on extreme metagaming and poor interpretations of what I've done thus far. Though, you bringing this card against me makes sense. Inexperianced scum seem to have an obsession with trying to pile on insurmountable amounts of "evidence" against their targets, as opposed to sticking to quality, core arguments.
"KevinM's style is consistent, but his content is off." How in this not an analysis of his past play? How is this acceptable for you and not a person you do not know? How is this not that dreaded thing you so vehemently despise? This looks like a good time to address one of your "quality, core arguments" against my own case. Metagaming.
What is metagaming? Using information outside of the context of the game/system to aid the decision making process. It has a negative connotation due to Table-top RPGs (which I'm sure most of us here have played at one time or another).
Why is metagaming bad? In the case of Mafia in general, the obvious reasoning is that
it is unreliable in the long term. This makes sense enough, and is not to be disputed; if a cat wanders into the road and is hit by a car, it will be less likely to make that mistake again (either because it is dead or will remember the experience).
After this game, FrozenFlame will certainly be more wary of his play style, and likely won't be making the unconscious slips he has been.
You speak of other "quality, core" arguments as though they produce indisputable evidence. This is ridiculous. You have shown a pattern of action over time. Your mafia play was rewarded with victory and positive reinforcement. Your town play should have been reinforced as well, if not for TUSM. Obviously, you felt that your own play was spot on here and wasn't going to change it. Without an outside stimulus there would be no reason to alter your style.
And. You. Haven't.
Can five million psychologists be wrong? Yes, logically. (
argumentum ad verecundiam and
Argumentum ad populum, or appeal to authority and the masses)
But going with their findings will provide someone with a statistically higher percent chance of success.
Concerning what you said in the quote, you are correct. What I have done is NOT pro-town simply by it's nature. I would be making this play whether I was scum or town. But, what you had attacked the QUALITY of my play and my arguments, in an effort to discredit me for use at a later time. i.e. "Cello has bad play, we can't listen to what he says."
To this end, you are continuing to use your appeal to authority as an experienced player.
"Classic new player mistake". That phrase truly is worthy of the term topic sentence.
FrozenFallacy said:
It's just as week and unsupported as every last bit of metagaming evidence you've brought to the table. Pot calling the kettle black here folks. I expressed my expectation of Delvro. That's it. I happen to believe that he did not concoct some ultra devious plan with his scum mates. I'm using Occum's Razor. From what was written, there is nothing present in what Delvro said that leads me to believe he was trying to trick us. If anything, from what was written, I gathered his intentions were to be as cooperative as possible with the town to get rid of the wolves, yet still give his faction a chance by not revealing his partners. Mafia is a game of interpreting intentions, not just reading language and pointing out semantic errors, or trying to build bridges between entirely unrelated pieces of evidence. You'll learn soon enough that all you're doing by stretching the truth as much as you have is trying to convince yourself that you're some master sleuth. You find a correlation and immediately conclude it must but a scum tell when the more logical conclusion is that it is completely innocuous. Your overly suspicious attitude is going to make you a poor town player which will make you perform bad regardless of your faction.
"From what was written". Funny how you talk tout your ability and the necessity to look past what is written. On that note, let's see what else was written here. Then let's see past it.
You are trying really hard to associate every argument I make with my metagaming, even though they are clearly separate entities. You are trying to group them all together because you believe that makes my arguments look bad. I'm seeing the beginning of an ad hominem attack here as well. "Cello is just trying to make himself look intelligent and thoughtful. He's just doing this to make himself look good."
A correlation exists here. I just drew the line of best fit.
CondescendingFlame said:
This has been a general trend in almost all of the recent games I've played. I used to be more like you. I'd go out of my way to dig up reasons to be suspicious of someone, and oftentimes end up lynching townies for stupid ghost tells. I don't do that anymore. If I don't have a strong idea of who might be scum, I'm not going to act like I do.
When you don't have a strong idea who the scum is, you try to find out.
Use whatever methods you like. I'd expect you to not sit like a knot on a log, though.
In this case, doubly so, since you are an IC.
FrozenSCUMTELLRIGHTHERE said:
Furthermore, since you've been metagaming so much, I'm sure you realized a lot of that stalling can be attributed to my general lack of activity during those games. I was very busy, often traveling on weekends, so the reason i was stalling wasn't because I was scum, but because of RL johns. What you've found is simply a COINCIDENCE and NOT the causation of my performance. This is a GRAVE error in much of your interpretation of my play.
So, let me get this straight: the reason you were stalling and not contributing is because you don't have enough time? So, in that case, why would you EVER want to stall? Why not actually use your time to contribute?
FiredUpFlame said:
I'm non-committal and indecisive when I REALLY ACTUALLY AM UNDECIDED ABOUT WHO IS/ISN'T A GOOD PLAY! Makes sense doesn't it? Oh wait, of course not, not to someone who's too busy convincing themselves that they've uncovered the Rosseta stone to FF's mafia play.
And there's the rest of the ad hominem. Didn't take Frozen very long for that.
But really, undecided? You're going to claim that you totally agreed with me on Delvro (I did take words from your mouth), then once again here on Day 2 with May against SRB (He just REEKED of scum bussing, remember?), then turn around and say you were undecided?
FrozenFallacy said:
Well where do you draw the line? You say I can do one thing, and not another, yet you fail to explicitly state what the difference between the good and bad is. On top of that, you then imply that I'm guilty of an action when you've done nothing to show how I've done it. Why would you do that though? That's too much work for an overconfident mafiat who thinks they can just throw out what they think is/isn't scummy and operate under the assumption that their word is law.
Here is the second part that indicates Frozen doesn't read posts and just skims through for information.
Coattails = letting everyone else do the work
Agreeing = pulling your own weight
I'll give an example. When Mayling accused me and Raptor, I was ready to point out the flaws in her argument. The very ones Hilt posted while I was gathering information.
Instead of getting mad, even though I was slightly irked I didn't get to say them, I went back to find other points to contribute. If you can't find ANYTHING relevant, then maybe you aren't playing the right game.
Later on in your post, you admit to stalling in this game.
FrozenBully said:
Let's look at this from a reasonable person's standpont. You say me being agreeable is simply me being a parrot. Any reasonable person would look at me agreeing with someone and understand that the person I agree with has exhausted the point and there is no reason for me to MUDDLE OR REWORD THE POINT (like a mafiat would, durrrrrr). If I agree, I agree, and I say just that. There's no reason for me to go to great lengths to clutter the page with a rehash of what has been said.
And anyone that disagrees with you is
unreasonable?
That's the most likely alternative suggestion to what you are saying.
FrozenFlame: "What you aren't realizing is that anyone who doesn't want to go to war, is gay."
The Group: "I want to go to war!" "No, I want to go to war!" "I was the first who wanted to go to war!"
Is that what you've learned from being on the debate team?
Even my team was better organized than that.
You then go on to accuse me of only bringing new substance when I'm attacked. How does that not make sense to you? You're trying to twist an entirely townie action (thoroughly defending oneself against fallacious offenses) and make it seem anti-town by juxtaposing it with instances of agreeability.[/QUOTE]
You are trying to redirect the subject here.
Imperfect Cello said:
Virtually everything, if not everything, of any substance that doesn't deal exclusively
with you defending an attack from me (concerning your past) has been a rehash of someone else's point.
Defending yourself against an attack from your past has nothing to do with rehashing other presented viewpoints. How could it? That's why I didn't claim you tried.
This was just an attempt to keep saying the word "town" and your own name so that people associate them. We are creatures of association.
After all, 5 million psychologists can't be wrong.
FrozenFallacy said:
As previously established, I agree with people when I, get this, agree with them. This is characteristic of me when I'm genuinely not confident in my own readings of people. Just because I've employed being agreeable with people as scum doesn't mean every time I'm agreeable, I'm scum. Maybe if you were a better player, you'd realize that the key difference in me agreeing with people as town and as scum, is when I'm scum, I agree with people who aren't making sense, or have plans of action that are mislead or not distinctly pro-town. It's not the act of being agreeable that's important, but the WHY BEHIND THE AGREEING. This is where your metagaming fails hardcore. You attribute the surface actions to alignment, when it isn't the ACTION that's important, but the motivation behind it.
Let's take a look at what this 'agreeable' bit refers to.
FrozenCoattail said:
Brofist @ KevMo.
This mother****er is too good. He quotes my oldschool **** and then take the words straight out of my mouth about Blazer. I basically agree with everything KevMo just said.
Little extreme there. Oh, but didn't I take the words out of your mouth too? The words themselves are immaterial and missing importance, since your style has had a bit of time to mature. But then again... there's really no reason for you to have changed, eh?
If I were a better player? Better, or one that had more credentials than you?
Another ad hominem attack. Followed by another attempted association with metagaming.
FrozenFallacy said:
Again, failure on your part to understand the context. I was not playing with such conviction simply because I was town. I was very explicit and vocal because I WAS VERY CONVINCED OF WHO WAS MAFIA. The tells were obvious to me, I picked up on them, and explained my thoughts to everyone as best as I could.
I wasn't a question of me being mafia or town. The difference in play in this game was my confidence in who the mafiats were. If you look at the early game, I was no where near as vocal as I was near the end. This is because it took time for me to pick up on the tells Skyler and Chaco were putting out. Once I put the pieces together, you see my style change. That's because my confidence changed. Somehow, you acknowledge that you recognized this as a reason for the change in the newbie game, but then are quick to dismiss it as a primary factor when you analyze other games. How peculiar. Sneaky scum attempt to shove the good logic under the carpet and maintain a position based on shoddy logic.
More attacks on my personal failings. I won't mention any more, since if anyone is actually reading this, then you get the idea by now. Moreover, something I don't think you are realizing is that
style is not defined by a single action. How you act through a whole game is your style. Let's see what you had to say about your style.
SoundAdviceGivingFrozen said:
FF's strategy for scumhunting D1 is the way FF scumhunts at all times. Read posts and attempt to deduce the whys behind them. Motivation is everything in forum mafia. People can say anything, and WHAT is said is often misleading. Figuring out why people take the time to post what they do is where the scumtells are at.
When things are moving slow though, FF will typically bring fresh scumtell material to the forefront and gauge what people think about it. Discussion is always key.
You were the one that said it was ironic you were being accusing of not scum-hunting when the May-Ronike debacle was still on everyone's minds. Was there no fresh material to bring to the front then? You got nothing from that? I'll admit, I was timid about getting involved, and I others said as such too, but now that we are a bit calmer, combing through it might yield something of interest.
Yet you got really defensive when Hilt called you out. Delvro and Hilt's votes seemed to be pressure votes, whereas yours with mine was something that was never going to come off, unless, of course, we
did decide to go with Hilt. Your scum-hunting ship has really good tacking doesn't it?
FrozenLoudMeansRight said:
I was town in all of these posts, since they were all on day one. The first one is me basically stalling. I had nothing of substance to say and so I popped in with a one liner and tried to talk to marshy. BUT WAIT, ACCORDING TO CELLO I MUST BE MAFIA IF I'M STALLING! THIS IS CONTRADICTORY, WHO EVER WOULD HAVE THOUGHT?!
How poignant. Still, the Marshy line was pretty much the same as we got here in three whole posts. The first and third are obvious, and the second was a post expected of an IC plus a "pressure vote". Frankly, it seemed more to me like you were just trying to get close to Tandora so you could exploit her later.
AdmitsToMETAGAMINGFlame said:
In the second link I literally talk about the vibes I get from Kev and Marshy! Another contradiction to Cello's metagaming BS. Just because I don't explicitly say the word "vibes" doesn't mean I'm not discussing them. Analyzing someone stylistically is the same thing as gauging the vibes you get from their text.
Examining someone's style is metagaming by it's very nature. Either it's fine or it's BS.
FrozenExtendingArmNitoriMarkTwoFlame said:
In the final post, you can see me being indecisive and having TWO TARGETS, SOMETHING I APPARENTLY ONLY DO WHEN I'M MAFIA. I offer a fairly strong opinion on Kevin, but openly state that I'm clueless on Marshy. Look, I can do all the things that Cello is metagaming as my scumtells, when I'm TOWN. Contradictions people, please don't ignore them. If it isn't obvious that Cello has simply taken the posts that suite his needs and misrepresented them for his own agenda by now, I'm not sure what else I can do.
I would bet my firstborn child that most of the people here aren't going to the other threads to read these bits. So I'll just post them here as quotes.
FrozenFlame said:
FF's strategy for scumhunting D1 is the way FF scumhunts at all times. Read posts and attempt to deduce the whys behind them. Motivation is everything in forum mafia. People can say anything, and WHAT is said is often misleading. Figuring out why people take the time to post what they do is where the scumtells are at.
When things are moving slow though, FF will typically bring fresh scumtell material to the forefront and gauge what people think about it. Discussion is always key.
Kev and Marshy seem to be playing normally. Stylistically speaking, FF wouldn't say that their playstyles are out of the ordinary. However, FF does contend that KevinM's piss poor lynch pool is highly scummy regardless of how he presented it. His style was fine, but his content is way off.
No read on Marshy atm.
FrozenFlame said:
Cacti's claim is legit IMO. Ned Flanders with no CC? That's pretty solid in FF's book.
His role is worse than a normal doctors. He can only protect vanilla townies, or PRs that don't act at night. All he can do is find out who PRs are, but he can't save them if they act. Mega nerfed doc role.
Not sure where all the suspicion on Riddle is coming from. His analysis of the claim is mostly accurate. "he wouldn't think of that" argument is pretty weak but the other stuff is logically sound.
FF is no fan of the newbie card either, but a huge part of early game in mafia is being able to tell the difference between noob/innocent slips and actual scumtells. Bearing Cactis claim in mind, he's certainly not the play for today.
Very suspicious of KevinM atm. He clearly didn't take any time to consider what Cacti meant by his roleclaim. Furthermore, he says his only two candidates are Cacti and Riddle, both of which FF sees no reason for targeting. Very telling of skimming. Ergo, scummy.
Vote: KevinM
Who's the one reaching now? Clueless on a person is NOT suspicion. You aren't just skimming in this game, you somehow manage to skim on YOUR OWN POSTS. In "the most important topic so far" for this game, you're screwing up like this?
Even if you somehow were town, I know I wouldn't want to take you with me to the final Day. You'd drop the ball like TUSM did.
That's too mean to actually say. But I want you to know it crossed my mind.
OnlyConsidersVotesFlame said:
I did not just agree to a Delvro lynch. I was the second person to actually make a case against him, with you being the first. Sold2 didn't really bring anything substantial to the table concerning Delvro, he just had voted him. Despite all this, you accuse me to have simply voted Delvro because "that seemed to be the direction things were going." Complete and utter BS. Yet another example of you trying to flood your posts with "evidence" hoping people wouldn't bother to go back and uncover the truth. You're trying to misconstrue my very pro-town analysis of Delvro as an ANTI-TOWN behavior. It's phenomenal linguistic gymnastics and I applaud your effort as scum to twist my actions to death, but sorry, it wont fly here.
You would have to be buried under a rock to not think people would be gunning for Delvro.
He was instigating "Roniker", Hilt introduced the point that excessive wolf talk would indicate mafia alignment, and S2's vote got the ball rolling. It would draw attention to Delvro that he did not withstand.
Of course, maybe that's how the three of you planned it.
FrozenMadAgain said:
As for my two targets right now, why WOULDN'T I express my suspicions of two people if I legitimately have suspicions of them? I DID establish who I THOUGHT was the better play until this point by PLACING MY VOTE ON SRB! Yet you accuse me of fence sitting! What a joke! Just because I'm convinced that both you and SRB are anti-town and don't mind who gets lynched doesn't mean I'm waiting to see where the "wind will blow" so as to avoid being too abrasive or something. Your accusation is ridiculous. Any reasonable townie would understand that my intention in expressing my top two suspects and comfort in lynching either of them was an effort to CLARIFY MY POSITION AND THUS SHOW MY WILLINGNESS TO COOPERATE IN THE LYNCH OF EITHER TARGET, SO AS TO BE TRANSPARENT IN MY INTENTIONS AND NOT JUMP ON A BANDWAGON OUT OF THE BLUE. How is establishing transparency in my suspicions anti-town? You SAY all these things are tells, but NEVER ONCE to you bother to analyze WHY they are. And why is that? Because YOU ARE WRONG AND LYING AND YOU KNOW IT.
I HAVE pointed out how it doesn't jive with your play style.
I HAVE explained these tells, and you tried to hand-wave them away.
If you are loud enough and disparaging enough, then people will flock to you.
That's what you are relying on here. 5 million psychologists can't be wrong.
Lying. Show me ONCE where I've lied.
FrozenBullyMarkII said:
Any reasonable townie with two suspects he's confident of would make those suspicions public and clear so he could aid in lynching either of the two, whichever his fellow townies agree most with. How does that not make sense? I'm hoping it will to my fellow townies.
Something bothered me when I first read this, and I realize why now.
You make it sound like like a townie COULDN'T aid in a lynch unless there was clear and present proof that he wanted that person lynched.
ThisIsFROZEN said:
What kind of crap expectation is this? Who says I was shutting down avenues of information gathering? Where did I say I wouldn't listen to others' opinions on his phonyness? The fact that I brought the post's legitimacy into question and stated that I thought it was phony provides more than enough transparency for that question to be open to discussion. I wasn't tunnel visioning, I was bringing my analysis to the table. But of course, leave it to Cello to once against try to strawman me. I shouldn't have to ASK for your opinions. If I present one, it is EXPECT AS A PART OF THE GAME OF MAFIA THAT OTHERS WILL COMMENT ON IT! So yeah, basically this is just another example of Cello setting a false expectation, calling me out on violating it, and trying to misconstrue my entirely pro-town actions as scummy.
Anyone remember when Hilt asked Frozen a question about who he thought was suspicious? Hilt put a pressure vote on him to get a response and then...
FrozenHeart said:
This is a joke right? You asked me who I was suspicious off, and then proceed to dismiss my post about Delvro and Cello? I'm sorry, do you need me to write you a personal letter with a nice formatted excel spread sheet with every player's suspicion ranking in numerical order inside, signed and dated by me, to answer your petty question? You've no right to accuse me of joking around when all you've done is asked pointless questions FROM THE SIDELINES.
From your response to Hilt, you had everyone else cowed. Do you really think anyone else would be coming forward after that little tirade? No. Especially since Hilt just accepted it.
YOU closed those avenues of communication all by yourself long ago. Moreover, you had no reason to open them up again unless it suited your needs. People are creatures of habit. 5 million psychologists can't be wrong.
Huh. Gathering information beyond the simple text. Imagine that.
ILikeFrozenScumI'llUseItAgain said:
No idea where you're getting that from. I simply stated I agreed with most of what she had to say. In NO WAY did I assert that she was in support of my position. I simply said my views coincided with mine. Funny that you didn't take this opportunity to accuse me of being over-agreeable and thus, instascum. I guess you're just so caught up in your lie weaving that you forgot to tie this one in.
AlsoFrozenFlame said:
Mayling brings some other good supporting evidence to the table against SRB, and I agree with some of it, but for the most part, I just feel like SRB's initial reaction to the claim is a dead giveaway of his scummyness.
The whole feel of the part of your post where you "simply agreed" makes it seem like you were making the initial reaction to Delvro's claim the end-all be-all of the case against SRB. Mayling offers good "supporting evidence". Remember, these are your own words.
This next part is hilarious.
FrozenDidn'tReadOneParagraphUp said:
Funny, more of the pot calling the kettle black. So it's ok for you to go back and conveniently quote just what suits your needs, but I can't express a general agreement with someone without spelling it out line by line? I even said I would bring specifics later, but no, of course, you being scum wouldn't give me that chance and are trying to pile on every last thing you can to make me look scummy. Good work.
This is in reference to the quote Mayling makes just above this. Yet, despite having it RIGHT THERE, Frozen still manages to "have no idea where I'm coming from".
Tunnel-vision with blinders must be a new fad.
No one will believe you are a hurt little lamb here, Frozen. Don't even try.
Quotes are set in stone statements that cannot be altered.
An open statement that could be interpreted dozens of ways is the exact opposite.
MindReadingFlame said:
Of course it matters what he thought! How are his intentions as a dead mafiat unimportant? Nice job creating a false dilemma here. Obviously if I'm analyzing the intentions of Delvro, I can't be analyzing others' opinions of his statements. Furthermore, in accordance with Cello logic, one cannot value the intentions of both initial statements AND the reactions of others. Its on or the other in his book, and if you don't explicitly state you are valuing one thing, you must not be. Classic scum work. Use fallacies like false dilemma to make it seem like someone is ignoring or not valuing things when there is no evidence to support it, only evidence to support that someone else IS being valued.
False dilemma, eh? Now, that's funny...
Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus, false in one thing, false in them all.
Almost all of your post is describing my incompetence and how it poisons all of my arguments. Fear-mongering.
Now, when did I say you couldn't evaluate multiple statements? I said that the
why behind what Delvro said was unimportant, and potentially harmful if we were swayed by what he was saying. That's a far sight from imposing sanctions against thought.
As a note, I'm going to skip the next one, because I think it's worthy of a post all of it's own.
Suffice it to say for now that it is the truest proof of Frozen's skimming and tunnel-vision.
FrozenTunnel said:
It's kind of sad that you can't understand that mentos was the best NK choice universally. Tom was inactive. Mentos replaced in and had little to no time to establish himself. NKing him would provide the town with almost no connections to draw once he flipped. He was THE BEST CHOICE. I love how you try to dismiss this pre-emptively by simply stating "non-Dgamers would have no reason to kill him" when in reality, he was the most obvious choice and you know it. Great job killing him though, and then attempting to use metagaming to use his death to frame me. Phenomenal disguising of WIFOM logic combined with awful metagaming. If I was your scum partner, I'd be proud.
You know, I didn't realize that I posted the uncleaned notepad version of my thoughts until now.
(When I'm at work, I don't have internet access. If I get bored, I'll mull over my impressions of this game, then come home to find information to disprove my impressions. If I don't find any, I look for those that support them)
At the time, I was actually thinking it could have been Xiivi too, since he mentioned the FF7 game for metahunting. On that note, why did you do nothing to discourage metagaming then? Why did you wait until it was a direct assault on you?
He was the best choice. I agree. I don't think the non-DGamers do.
They all saw my post saying I'd go for the most talkative. I think they would go for a frame job, or ask an IC partner if he or she had one. Ask your own partner, he'll tell you that's the case. Oh, after this game, would you send me your chat logs? I'd love to read them.
FrozenWithAGenuinelyInterestingComment said:
Ronike, Xiivi, I'm deeply disgraced that my fellow ICs are actually going along with Cello's garble.
Ronike called this one for me.
Ronike said:
Xarbon (yeah I know its with a z, but I wanted to look cool too), shame upon you for falling for ff's shameless appeal to your SAYAIN pride.
He also said something else that was interesting.
Ronike said:
I also have realized Im going to have to scumhunt differently even for people I do know since they are going to be acting differently in this environment.
This is probably the best argument against CONTINUAL metagaming that I've heard. Unlike Frozen's reusable Experience card, I could only point out his habits once.
From this point on, I CAN'T use that sort of meta, since he/they will be more wary of his/their actions.
Just in case you didn't notice, my responses ARE in fact chock full of logical holes this time. But a logical fallacy doesn't negate truth. 5 million psychologists can't be wrong.
Stop pretending this is a logic puzzle on Grey Labyrinth. Almost all of the arguments made in mafia are logical fallacies. Spending time arguing about it is time that we are wasting.
WIFOM is a logical fallacy. But the many instances of these occurring for Frozen is more likely the slip up of a human being.
These are in order of importance.
The Five Major Points:
1) His repeated recent behavior suggests he is likely performing in his scum playing style.
2) He's skimming articles and posts instead of reading them, and I can prove it.
3) Lack of forthrightness concerning game-relevant information, as compared to
game-mechanics information. He's insistent upon casting doubt and suspicion on less
capable players rather than investigating or even mentioning the possibility that it was
a newbish mistake. (Raptor and Hilt, plus when he talked about his role in Simpsons)
4) Hypocrisy in that he insists on refuting my points with logic arguments while maintaining
a right to use metalogic himself due to an appeal to his own authority.
5) Extremely defensive play. Reacts explosively to most inquiries, resulting in timidity
and aloofness.
